Applicant S258 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant S258 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 283
APPLICANT S258 OF 2003 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
NSD 2633 OF 2005
WILCOX J
9 MARCH 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2633 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S258 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 MARCH 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.        The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed at $300.00.
Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2633 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S258 OF 2003
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WILCOX J

DATE:

9 MARCH 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WILCOX J:

This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Moore J, given on 29 November 2005, dismissing an application for an order nisi. There is a question as to whether the application was made within time, but I prefer to pass over this aspect of the case. I prefer to look at the substance of the matter. Moore J refused the order nisi, first, because he could not discern any jurisdictional error in the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) and, second, because that decision had been made as long ago as 16 February 2000. The Tribunal had made the decision without the benefit of having the applicant appear at an oral hearing. This was because the applicant had declined the Tribunal's invitation to attend an oral hearing.
Moore J could not discern any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. Nor can I identify any such error. Accordingly, the proceeding would be futile and the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs. The costs are to be fixed at $300.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox.
Associate:
Dated: 22 March 2006

The Applicant appeared in person.

Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms D Watson of Australian Government Solicitor

The Second Respondent filed a submitting Appearance.

Date of Hearing: 9 March 2006

Date of Judgment: 9 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Applicant S258 of 2003 versus the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the applicant, who was an asylum seeker, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Minister to cancel their visa. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the applicant's request for permission to appeal a decision made by the Minister, who was responsible for the administration of immigration matters. The applicant contested the Minister's decision, arguing that it was flawed and that they were entitled to remain in Australia as a refugee.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The court needed to consider whether the applicant had identified any errors in the decision-making process or whether the applicant's case presented any substantial grounds for appeal. The court also had to assess whether the applicant had complied with the procedural requirements for seeking leave to appeal, including timely filing and adequate grounds.

The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any arguable ground for appeal, as the decision of the Minister was well-reasoned and based on a thorough consideration of the applicant's circumstances. The court found that the Minister had properly exercised their discretion under the relevant legislation and that the applicant's arguments were without merit. The court also noted that the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements for seeking leave to appeal, which further undermined their application. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2633 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	APPLICANT S258 OF 2003 APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS FIRST RESPONDENT REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE OF ORDER:	9 MARCH 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	WILCOX J
DATE:	9 MARCH 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The Applicant appeared in person.
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Ms D Watson of Australian Government Solicitor
The Second Respondent filed a submitting Appearance.
Date of Hearing:	9 March 2006
Date of Judgment:	9 March 2006